Government is in Denial About the Risks of These Vaccines, Say MPs

by Will Jones -

On Monday a debate on vaccine safety took place in Parliament. Three of the speeches by MPs are reproduced in full below. The transcript of the complete debate, including the Government Minister’s response, can be read here. Reports on this debate in the mainstream media have been scarce; if readers are aware of any please note them in the comments below or email us here.

Danny Kruger (MP for Devizes, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who gave a very good defence of the vaccine programme and of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. I respect that, but I regret his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who raised the point about medical expertise that casts some doubt on the vaccines. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington chose to smear all opponents of the vaccine programme. Of course there are lunatics out there who make absurd and outrageous claims, but there are many reasonable and respectable people who have anxieties about the vaccine programme, particularly people who have suffered as a result of the programme and their families.

I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on COVID-19 vaccine damage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch chairs. The APPG looks at vaccine injuries, and we had what I think was our first meeting last week in a Committee room in Portcullis House. I am afraid there were only a tiny handful of colleagues there, but well over a hundred members of the public attended, which is not the usual story for an APPG. I felt somewhat ashamed, on behalf of Parliament, that that was the first time that those members of the public – including families of the bereaved, who are themselves injured citizens – had had the opportunity to be in a room with members of this House, but I am very pleased that we are having this debate, and particularly pleased that there is an opportunity for members of the public to hear from the Minister on this topic.

I should say to members of the public who are watching that we have in Westminster Hall today a very good Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr. Johnson), who is genuinely committed to health, including public health, and she showed a real interest in this topic and in the effect of Covid policies when she was a back-bench MP.

Although many questions about our Covid response need to be answered, the U.K. is by no means the worst offender. We are not Canada, New Zealand or China – places where Governments think they can exterminate Covid by depriving their population of the most basic civil liberties. However, I am afraid that we still have many questions to ask ourselves, and even much to be ashamed of. I put on record that in hindsight I am particularly ashamed of my vote to dismiss care workers who did not want to receive the vaccine. I very much hope that the 40,000 care workers who lost their jobs can be reinstated, and indeed compensated. A group of us – including, I think, the Minister – held out against compulsory vaccination of health workers when that was proposed by the Government last winter. I think that resistance turned the tide, to a degree, on Government policy, and we emerged from the lockdowns more quickly than we might otherwise have done, yet we still have a policy of mass vaccination, which I want to query on behalf of constituents who have written to me about it.

My query starts with a simple point. In October 2020, when preparations were being made for the vaccine roll-out, Kate Bingham, the head of the vaccines agency, said: “There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”

Why was vaccination extended to the whole population? I do not think we have ever had a completely satisfactory answer to that question. I ask it again, because my concern is that extending the vaccination programme became an operation in public persuasion – an operation in which dissent was unhelpful or even immoral, and an operation that justified the suppression and even vilification of those who raised concerns.

Andrew Bridgen interjects: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Unlike any other vaccine, the Covid vaccine was given to people who had natural immunity because they had provably contracted the virus. Why were those people vaccinated?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best vaccine against Covid is Covid, and many people were naturally immune. There are questions to be asked about the effects of vaccination on the immune system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made an understandable point about the importance of resisting misinformation. As I mentioned, there are certainly many crazy theories out there to which we need not give credence. If we are talking about a programme of vaccinating the population, it is important that the public are persuaded to do what the Government want them to do, so I understand why the Government should have a public health information campaign. However, it is an essential principle of medical ethics that people must be able to give informed consent before any treatment, and I worry about whether we can say that consent was fully informed in all cases.

Throughout, there has been misinformation in favour of the vaccine. I would not say that was deliberate; it was possibly accidental. We can tell that with hindsight. Perhaps the most egregious example was the claim that the vaccine is 95% effective; as was mentioned earlier, Dr. Malhotra presented on this to the APPG last week. That figure refers simply to the relative risk, instead of the actual or absolute reduction in risk to an individual. The absolute risk reduction is really less than 1%.

There was also the widespread claim that the vaccine stops transmission, so people should take the jab to protect other people. We were all told that; we all believed that for many months. Last month, we heard from Pfizer that its vaccine was never tested to see whether it would stop transmission. Despite that, we had the notorious claim by Professor Chris Whitty that even though the vaccine brought no benefit to children, children should be vaccinated to protect wider society. I am all for thinking about society, not the individual, but that, again, feels like a profound break with medical ethics. A lot of people are asking what the vaccine does to children and young people, and Professor Whitty is right that the benefit to healthy children seems to be essentially nil.

There are genuine questions to be asked. I have not verified these questions; I merely ask them on behalf of my constituents. How do we explain the increase in the rates of myocarditis, heart attacks and excess deaths among young people? Indeed, across the general population, it is plausible, though not definitive, that the vaccine is responsible for more harms than we know about. As I said in my intervention, we know from the yellow card scheme that up to one in 200 hundred people vaccinated report an adverse reaction. That is bad enough in itself, but we also know that adverse effects are significantly under-reported through the yellow card scheme. Based on the MHRA’s research, there may be as many as 10 times more serious adverse reactions than the yellow card system shows.

Apsana Begum interjects: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the Minister to explain how people who say they have experienced damage from the vaccine can ensure that they are heard? There is the yellow card scheme, the module in the public inquiry, and people can apply for vaccine damage compensation, but there need to be more meaningful ways through which people can be engaged with on their experiences of damage.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady – I absolutely agree. This is a very important moment in which the Minister can hear from Members speaking on behalf of their constituents. I encourage far greater engagement with citizens who have suffered from vaccine damage, or even lost loved ones to it.

There may be innocent explanations for the rather terrifying facts I have mentioned; I very much hope there are. If these are conspiracy theories, we need them to be comprehensively and courteously debunked.

To close, I have four questions for the Minister. First, will she review the vaccination of children? Children have strong naturally acquired immunity, and the chance of death from Covid for a healthy child is one in 2 million. I believe we should follow other countries, such as Denmark, and stop vaccinating children altogether. I invite the Minister to review that aspect of the policy.

Secondly, will the Minister make representations in Government, and to Baroness Hallett, on broadening the terms of reference for her inquiry, so that they explicitly include the efficacy and safety of the vaccines? I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington says, and he is absolutely right: the inquiry terms of reference include mention of the vaccination programme and its effects. He may well be right that that is sufficient, and that the review will properly consider the topics that we are discussing. I hope so, but that needs to be made more explicit; I invite the Minister to comment on that.

Sir Christopher Chope interjects: I wrote to Baroness Hallett, asking her to ensure that the terms of reference specifically covered the safety and impact of vaccines. As a result of representations, not just from me but from others, the terms of reference were amended to make it quite clear that vaccines, their impact and the potential damage done by them are included.

I am grateful for that clarification. It causes me concern to hear that it took my hon. Friend’s representations to ensure that the inquiry will consider the effect of the vaccines. We need to go further and talk about efficacy and safety, not just impact. We need to be explicit about what questions we want answers to. These issues need to be covered directly. We need the public inquiry to consider these matters, because of the compromised nature of medical regulation in our country. I mentioned that the MHRA is funded by the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs and vaccines that it regulates. There might be some universe in which that makes sense, but this is not it. I do not think that is right.

Thirdly, we need to do a lot more for the injured and bereaved, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said. I agree with all the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and we will hear from him shortly on what needs to be done to raise the threshold for compensation for the injured, and the speed of payouts. I agree with him that we need clinics for people with adverse reactions, just as we do for people with Long Covid.

Finally, we need to change the power imbalance. I am sorry, on behalf of Parliament, that this is the first proper debate that we have had on this subject. I regret that victims and families have had to struggle so hard to get engagement of the system. I hope that the Minister agrees to meet some of the people here, and other representatives of families affected by the vaccines, for a proper exchange of information and ideas, and I hope that she will request that Dame June Raine of the MHRA meets them, rather than ignoring letters for months.

A new Government takes over this week. I hope that the Minister, who was appointed only recently, will stay in post, and that we can start a new chapter in the story of Covid. No more remote power telling people what to do. Let us put truth and justice back into public life, and restore trust in the experts on whom we rely.

Sir Christopher Chope (MP for Christchurch, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am, as was mentioned, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on COVID-19 vaccine damage. The group is now up and running. We had an enormously well-supported meeting in Portcullis House last Thursday. I agree with the legitimate concerns of the 100,000-plus people who signed the petition, and share their belief that the recent data relating to cardiovascular problems, which is increasing in volume, is of enough concern to warrant an inquiry on safety. As I have said, the big Hallett inquiry on COVID-19 will cover a lot of this ground, but it will not report for many years. In the meantime, people are being encouraged to have more and more boosters, and they understandably want to know the impact of those boosters on their health and the risks and rewards.

As well as being chairman of the APPG, I have taken an interest in the subject for about a year, and produced a private Member’s Bill on the subject, and I hope to produce another, which will have its Second Reading next month. Coroners up and down the country have found in their reports that deaths have been caused directly by COVID-19 vaccines. I have spoken to some of the bereaved; indeed, I spoke to the gentleman referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) – the gentleman who attended our meeting on Thursday, and whose wife was a journalist in Newcastle. I have seen with my own eyes the suffering of people who are bereaved or still suffering adverse reactions.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), in introducing the debate, did not have much to say about the people who we know have suffered death or serious injury as a result of the vaccines. My hon. Friend showed himself to be rather the victim of producer capture – the producer in this case being the MHRA. He does not seem to have allowed his researches to go further than the MHRA. Has he, for example, looked at what has been happening in Germany? The Paul Ehrlich Institute is the German regulator responsible for vaccine safety. On July 20th, the institute confirmed that one in 5,000 people was seriously affected after a vaccination. That also reflected a finding that it published earlier in the year, in which the institute tried to raise the alert that one in 5,000 vaccinated people experienced a serious side effect, such as heart muscle inflammation. It said that, statistically, every 10th person must expect a severe consequence from having a course of three or four vaccines. The institute uses the World Health Organisation definition of a “serious adverse event”, meaning one that results in hospitalisation or is life-threatening or life-changing. After a course of four doses, the risk of a report to its system of a serious adverse effect is one in 1,250. That is serious information coming from the regulator of a country that is highly respected for the quality of its healthcare.

Is it not interesting that the number of adverse reports referred to the institute is far fewer than the number of adverse reports that led to the 1976 swine flu vaccine being withdrawn? Some hon. Members may recall that, in 1976, the President of the United States, Gerald Ford, was panicked by swine flu into organising a vaccination campaign. When reports emerged of suspected adverse reactions, including heart attacks and Guillain-Barré syndrome, and there were 53 reported deaths, people began to worry about the safety of the vaccine. The Government halted that mass vaccination programme in December of that year. In that case, the Government acted on far fewer adverse events than we have talked about in this debate and decided that, given the balance of risk and reward, it was too risky to continue with the vaccination programme. Let us look at the facts and not just be beholden to the MHRA. If this were a debate about the MHRA, I would have masses of material on it.

The Government seems to be in denial about the risks of these vaccines. Only this morning, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England was on the radio saying that the boosters were perfectly safe and effective, but they are not perfectly safe, and there is a question about whether they are effective, but that is for another debate. The fact that they are not perfectly safe has now been admitted by the Government. Indeed, the U.K. Health Security Agency has issued “A guide to the COVID-19 autumn booster” – you may have seen a copy of it, Sir Roger. It requests that people get another booster from their GP. Unfortunately, the cover letter from the NHS makes no reference to any risks associated with the vaccine, but if one looks at the document included in the envelope, it talks about serious side effects. It says:

Cases of inflammation of the heart (called myocarditis or pericarditis) have been reported very rarely after both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. These cases have been seen mostly in younger men and within several days of vaccination. Most of the people affected have felt better and recovered quickly following rest and simple treatments.

It then states: “You should seek medical advice”.

What it does not state is what happens to those people who do not recover. That is what I will concentrate on in the remainder of my remarks. Those people, if they are disabled to the extent of 60% or more, may be eligible for payments under the vaccine damage payment scheme. They might get £120,000. That scheme, however, is not fit for purpose, because its description of disability does not necessarily apply to autoimmune conditions such as those suffered as a consequence of COVID-19 vaccine damage. And what about all of those people who are only 59% disabled? There is no financial help for them and, even more worryingly for many, no specific medical help.

The Government refuses to provide specialist help for these vaccine victims. Although it has set up Long Covid clinics, vaccine victims are being ignored. I have asked parliamentary questions about this, but I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why there are no clinics for those victims of vaccine damage. As a result of the Government’s behaviour, victims are increasingly telling their loved ones, neighbours and friends about their circumstances, which is leading to a much lower rate of applications for booster vaccines. That is happening because the Government cannot suppress the information that ordinary people are sharing with one another, even though there is very little on this topic in the mainstream media.

Many people now would not touch a booster with a bargepole, and I include myself among them. I am not anti-vax – I had my first two vaccines – but from all that I have seen and know about this, the increase in boosters is counterproductive for many and dangerous for some. We need to take into account what is happening on the ground. People are becoming increasingly vaccine-hesitant. Large numbers of doctors and health professionals are now calling for a complete halt to the vaccination programme because the risks outweigh the benefits.

Sir John Hayes interjects: The thing to understand is that there is a fundamental difference between these kinds of vaccines and vaccination per se*. Vaccination* per se has saved millions of lives here and elsewhere, but these vaccines are qualitatively different. Science matters, but much matters more.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the United States, they changed the definition of a vaccine. We have always understood a vaccine to mean someone receiving into their system something containing a small element of that which they were being vaccinated against, so that their system could react against it and protect them if they were later exposed to a large amount. But unlike those old vaccines, these vaccines do not use the raw material, so in many senses it is a misnomer to describe them as vaccines at all. That information is not really out there among the public any more than the fact that the booster vaccines have not been tested on humans at all during studies; they were tested only on mice. People are being used as victims for experimentation, and that is why they are getting worried.

Finally, Oracle Films’ film, “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion”, is available on YouTube – I make no apology for the fact that I participate in that film – and sets out a different view on the safety of these vaccines. I am not saying we should ban all COVID-19 vaccines and have a complete halt. What I am saying is that there is an urgent need for the Government to get to grips with this issue before more people are duped into having vaccines that they probably do not need, that will not do them any good and that will present risks to their health.

Andrew Bridgen (MP for North West Leicestershire, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will try to curtail my remarks to six minutes.

This is a hugely important debate and it is overdue. Those people who have questioned the efficacy or safety of the vaccines have generally been cut down and cancelled. That is why this is so important. I do not claim to be any sort of expert, but my degree a long time ago was in genetics, behaviour and biochemistry. Science works by challenge, and the science behind the vaccines has not been allowed to be challenged.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, included 7,806 children aged five or younger who were followed for an average of 91.4 days after their first Pfizer vaccination. The study showed that one in 500 children under five years of age who received a Pfizer mRNA – messenger ribonucleic acid – Covid vaccine were hospitalised with a vaccine injury, and one in 200 had symptoms ongoing for weeks or months afterwards. Will the Minister outline the Government’s current policy on vaccination and boosters, and our current policy for the vaccination of children?

Half a per cent of the children – 40 out of the 7,806 – had symptoms that were still ongoing and of unknown significance at the end of the trial. That was during a two to four-month follow-up period, so 0.5% of the children had an adverse effect that lasted for weeks or months. In two cases, the symptoms were confirmed to have lasted longer than 90 days. Given that evidence, perhaps the Minister could explain why we are vaccinating healthy children who are at minimal risk from Covid. Surely that is in breach of the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. We are not in a situation where we can ask young people to risk their lives to protect older people. In a civilised society, that cannot be the way it works.

According to the Independent in April, more than 1,200 claims have been made to the vaccine damages payment scheme, which entitles successful applicants to £120,000, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), if a causal link between vaccination and severe reaction culminating in injury or death is proven. Does the Minister recognise those figures? Sarah Moore, a lawyer who represents 95 families seeking claims, said that her clients felt “silenced and ignored”, adding that they cannot speak about vaccine harm or linked injuries without being accused of being anti-vax. What is the Minister’s view on victims being labelled as anti-vaxxers?

The Department of Health and Social Care commissions research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. There is £1.6 million that has been allocated for a programme to understand the rare condition of blood clotting with low platelets following vaccination for COVID-19. Does the Minister think that is sufficient? Is there a sufficient breadth of investigation considering all the things we are finding out about the vaccines? Where is the cost-benefit analysis by age group for the vaccines, given the risks that they carry, especially as the pharma companies are now admitting that vaccination does not impact on transmission? Did the Government know, when they mandated vaccines for care and NHS workers, that the vaccines had not been tested to find whether they prevented transmission?

The Florida Department of Health conducted an analysis through a self-controlled case series, which is a technique originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety. The analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males aged 18 to 39 within 28 days following messenger ribonucleic acid vaccination. With a higher level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by that abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in that age group. The recommendation now in Florida is that they do not vaccinate any male under the age of 40.

Florida’s surgeon general, Dr Joseph Ladapo, said: “Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health. Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed – these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”

I suggest that such important findings should be transmitted to everyone who has had a vaccine or is contemplating a booster. I also had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Aseem Malhotra at the APPG launch last week. He made a very strong case for the idea that up to 90% of adverse vaccine reactions are not even being reported.

Finally – I wish I had longer to speak – what is the Government’s analysis of the excess deaths that we are suffering in this country, across Europe and in the Americas? Even a casual glance at the data shows a strong correlation between vaccine uptake and the excess deaths in those regions. Surely we must have an investigation. Tens of thousands more people than expected are dying. This is really important, and if we do not get it right, no one will believe us, and trust in politicians, in medicine and in our medical system will be lost.


A Message to Humanity: The Time for Silence is Over

My fellow humans worldwide, the time for silence is over. I have been beating this drum for years now, but for some reason, the decision by a panel of 15 “doctors” at the CDC to place the COVID-19 shot on the childhood vaccination schedule has caused me to reignite my plea.

The time for silence is over. There is far too much readily available data, far too many examples, and far too much pain and suffering for this to continue. We have data from systems designed to alert us to harm and death the government created. We have independent studies. We have pharmaceutical studies. We have state governments recommending against the vaccine. We have world-renowned doctors and virologists pleading as they sacrifice their careers, all to try to save humanity. We have exploding cancer rates in young people. We have healthy athletes having heart attacks. We have teenagers dying for no discernible cause. We have morticians speaking out about the fibrous structures they are removing from those who passed during embalming, like nothing they have ever experienced before. We have excess death statistics that show loss of life in young people far surpassing that of the Vietnam war. We have actuaries speaking out about insurance claims spiking in such a way that they represent a never before seen event. We have gynecological complications increasing at an exponential rate. We have independent experience. We have loved ones who have died. We have loved ones who have gotten very ill, and we have loved ones who have lost their babies. We have loved ones who can no longer have babies. The list goes on and on and on. Have a look.

We are not conspiracy theorists. The facts and data are clearly on our side. The facts and data are stark, sad, and foreboding. It is clear at this point that the vaccine is deadly at worst and harmful at best. Untold suffering is occurring all over the globe, and this is what we know about two years in. No one can tell what the field will look like in another 5 or 10. It is about time we did more. We must do more. The future of the human race depends on it.

It may sound like conjecture or hyperbole, but it is sadly true. Not only is the vaccine harming individuals, but it is driving immune escape and mutation in the existing COVID virus. It also allows old viruses that should be quickly taken care of by our God-given immune systems to flourish because of the harm the injection causes to the bodies of those who receive it. It is causing issues a body can normally take care of to rear its ugly head, like in the case of Bell’s Palsy and Shingles.

If you are a doctor or medical professional and you are reading this and aware of what is happening, the time for you to stay silent on account of self-preservation is over. The weight of what you know vs. a license, a job, etc., is too great. “Just following orders” or fear of scrutiny won’t cut it anymore. Several have come before you to lay the groundwork so you, too, can be brave. Look within your heart and exercise that bravery, or be complicit in harm to our species that before now was unheard of. It is that serious. It is incumbent upon you to speak out, provide your patients with informed consent that is real and tangible, and educate them today. They placed a trust in you that far surpasses the trust they place in even their closest family and confidants. You have a duty, a responsibility, to speak up. It is your path. You must walk it. You are in the role you are in at a time such as this for a reason. Be brave, do something.

If you are a nurse and have coworkers who “know” but are “silenced,” band together and RIP the muzzle off your face. Stand strong in solidarity. Take whatever consequences come your way. Find strength in numbers. You all took an oath to do no harm, but each day you watch a patient take this poison, you are disregarding your oath. You are complicit if you do not speak. Find the fire inside of you to be the one who makes the change. There are more of you than you realize. Stop being scared. Take the leap. Countless around the globe will thank you because it will mean a healthy life and a life that was saved by you.

If you are the every-man, there are still people you haven’t spoken to. Call them today. Don’t wait. Prepare your information, and get it ready for an email or text. Sit with them and discuss it. Have them over. Watch an interview or seminar. Make them stay out of respect for you because you are respecting them; you are trying to save their life. If you have been shunned by friends and family, you have been shunned with their best interests at heart. You know this deep down. You can rest your head on your pillow every night and know how hard you tried. At least you tried.

If you are the every-man with a bit more nerve, go stand outside of your nearest school with a packet of information to hand out to parents on the car line. Do it until they threaten to arrest you, and get arrested if you must. It is that serious. It must be done. Go to a mall and flier the windshields of every car in the parking lot. Create a landing page or send people to a reputable site with the needed information. Get your boots on the ground. Do it today. Do not wait. Your fellow human needs you right now.

Call your congressman or senator, call today, call tomorrow, and call next week. Write them letters. Send letters to your local newspaper. Do it any way you can, and do it with passion. Don’t stop until your hands ache and your voice shakes.

We are in the midst of one of the greatest psychological operations in human history. If you got this vaccine, you are likely in moral peril right now if you have become aware of its harms. You probably shunned family and friends who didn’t get it. You probably kept your kids away from their grandparents. You probably told people that they didn’t deserve medical care without it. You probably coerced others into doing it so that they could “save grandma.” It is now YOUR turn to save what will be someone’s grandma one day. Take to your social media with the same fervor you did to cast aspersions on the unvaccinated and explain to your vaccinated friends what you have learned. None of us want an apology; we want you to pay it forward. Do it today. Do not wait. Do it right now.

Ignore the constant flood of hatred that comes at you from those who try to prove you wrong, for some reason, all too happy to continue to believe the outright falsehood that the shots are “safe and effective.” They are neither safe nor effective. It is not for us to try to figure out what lays in the hearts and souls of those who pen hit pieces, cancel, scorn. They will face their accountability with God. We all do.

It is far past time for us to continue to stand by as the bureaucracy assaults us with its propaganda. They can not silence us all, and this is one thing we can all get behind.

It is your duty as a human being to make it your mission to educate everyone you know. Start today. Do not wait. At the supermarket, the gas station, the movie theater, or yoga. Via telephone or social media, or in person. You must begin to speak about this now more fervently than you ever have before.

In the coming weeks, UncoverDC will produce a guide you can use. But don’t wait. There are plenty of resources available. None of the people who were brave enough to do this first want a “thank you.” We want to call you our family in this battle. The time is now; there isn’t any more to waste. The future of our species, across the globe, across gender, race, and creed; the future of our species depends on us right now. Do it now. Do not wait. You are here for a time such as this. May God shine his mercy upon us before it is too late.

Christine Anderson
We shall see

Video: The COVID Vaccine Gigantic Lie. “The Cat Is Out of the Bag.” Christine Anderson

“It was a gigantic lie what they told us that the vaccines will prevent you from catching the virus or prevent the transmission. … Well none of that is true, as it turns out. And based on that lie, all of the mandates, all of the lockdowns, pharmaceutical measures such as wearing masks, staying-at-home, curfews — all of that were based on that gigantic lie; and yet, they will not acknowledge it.”

MP is suspended from Parliament a week after “vaccine harms speech” but he has not been silenced

After his tremendous speech in Parliament last Tuesday, Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen was asked to provide a list of references that he relied on to write his “vaccine harms debate speech.” He has uploaded a resource list on his website HERE. “This is the same list that was sent to journalists and so-called ‘fact checking’ websites,” Mr. Bridgen said.

He has since been suspended from attending Parliament. But this hasn’t stopped him from speaking out. This week he has given interviews with Irreverend and, a few days later, James Delingpole. In this article, we refer to the first interview. You can watch Mr. Bridgen’s interview with Delingpole HERE.

Propaganda Media Coverage

Mr. Bridgen’s speech is on both Parliament TV and YouTube. And, despite Mr. Bridgen sending them a press pack, corporate media have gaslighted it except for an article the next day in the Express and Scottish Daily Express.

Of course, Full Fact has written a blog. “Yellow Card reporting rate estimates shouldn’t be applied to Covid-19 vaccines,” they wrote. Why? Because “it is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported,” Full Fact said without so much as a hint of recognising the irony in their reasoning.

Another argument Full Fact attempted to make was that absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction are two different things – a point Mr. Bridgen had already highlighted in his speech. On another point, simply because Full Fact’s bloggers weren’t able to replicate statistics Mr. Bridgen used from a study regarding children under 5, the blogger determines Mr. Bridgen’s statistics can’t be true.

The final point Full Fact made beggars belief. The conscientious bloggers overlooked the part in Mr. Bridgen’s speech regarding the conflicts of interest and corruption in the UK’s regulatory bodies and boldly argued Mr. Briggen must be wrong because “mRNA Covid-19 vaccines have been approved as safe and effective.” You couldn’t make it up!

Mr. Bridgen is Suspended

A week to the day after Mr. Bridgen courageously gave his speech calling for the suspension of Covid injections, he was given a 5-day suspension from Parliament and could be in danger of losing almost a month’s pay.

The reasons given for the suspension were:

  • two days for failing to declare that he received a paid trip to Ghana in eight emails to ministers; and
  • three days for writing to the Standards Commissioner Kathryn Stone asking if she had been lobbying to receive a peerage.

Express UK reported that there had been concerns that he could have had his suspension doubled to 10 days after an appeal which would have triggered a recall vote in his constituency but his suspension remains at five days.

As the news of Mr. Bridgen’s suspension was breaking, Darren McCaffrey of GB News reported that Mr. Bridgen’s suspension was in no way related to his speaking out against vaccine harms because it dates back to a couple of months ago. Mr. Bridgen had filed an appeal and it was his appeal that was denied on Tuesday.

However, we cannot ignore that Mr. Bridgen was suspended from Parliament and is also the one who publicly called out the safety of the Covid injections in no uncertain terms. Mr. Bridgen may have been found guilty of breaking the rules, but is he the only one?

There have been 11 MPs suspended from Parliament since the beginning of 2020, each being given between one and five days suspension. Installed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is not one of them. Whatever Mr. Bridgen’s trip to Ghana was worth it’s nowhere near the amount of £2.1m per year income tax Sunak’s wife avoided paying. This tax avoidance was also happening when Sunak was Chancellor of the Exchequer and was responsible for raising revenue through taxation or borrowing and for controlling public spending.

Sunak is not the only MP who as acted dubiously over the last three years. For more than a year, Good Law Project has been working to uncover the politically-connected firms that benefitted from the Government’s £37 billion Test and Trace programme. “We know that 50 companies with close links to Ministers, Peers and Government officials were given access to a priority route through which they secured lucrative Covid testing contracts,” they wrote in June. Michael Gove was one of those who referred firms down a fast track ‘VIP’ route to bid for lucrative Test and Trace contracts.

There were also VIP Lanes for personal protective equipment (“PPE”) referred by, for example, Siobhan Baillie, MP for Stroud. According to a National Audit Office (“NOA”) report in March 2022, the Department of Health & Social Care (“DHSC”) had awarded 394 PPE contracts worth £7.9 billion. Of the 394 contracts awarded, 115 were awarded to 51 VIP lane suppliers. And surprisingly little of the PPE reached its intended destination. NOA’s report stated that DHSC had received 31.5 billion items of PPE in the UK (of which only 55% had been actually distributed to health and social care settings), with another 1.4 billion stored in China and 5.0 billion still to be received.

How many of the MPs involved in VIP Lanes have been investigated or suspended?

Potential Harms of Vaccines

On Saturday Irreverend interviewed Mr. Bridgen about the emerging evidence that calls into question the safety of mRNA injections.

The scientific evidence does not support the further use of the mRNA vaccines, Mr. Bridgen said. “If you look at the original data from [Pfizer’s trials] it never supported the use of the vaccines in the population … So I called for the government for the immediate cessation of all mRNA vaccines and certainly not to approve their use for children at six months.”

Mr. Bridgen had read biological sciences at Nottingham University. He specialised, mostly, in genetics and behaviour. His dissertation in his final year was on viruses and viroids.

He was uncomfortable with the Government’s lockdown policies and approach to the so-called Covid pandemic. (Yes Mr. Bridgen used the term “so-called Covid pandemic”!) “I was very reluctant to vote for the lockdowns,” he said.

“I didn’t vote for the last two lockdowns. I voted against ‘Plan B’. I’m sceptical about the mask-wearing.” However, to begin with, Mr. Bridgen wasn’t sceptical about the Covid injection. He has had two doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca. But “the data that’s coming in from harms – the Yellow Card data – and then when you actually speak to sceptical professionals but they take you through the scientific papers and the evidence … [its] deeply worrying,” he said. “[The vaccines] are not safe, they’re not effective and they’re not necessary.”

“Since I first raised this issue, probably about a month ago six weeks ago in a Westminster Hall debate about vaccine harms that was brought by petition, I have had a lot of emails from a lot of people who claim to be vaccine harmed.

“What’s driving [the push for the injections in the UK], I think, is money and greed … I think we’ve sacrificed enough of us, us the citizens, lives on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed.”

Mr. Bridgen met with Pfizer in November 2020. “These people [from Pfizer] told me then … that we’ll be taking these vaccines every three months for the rest of our lives and, basically, they were going to make a fortune out of us,” he said.

Mr. Bridgen is hoping that, following his appeal, scientists, doctors, nurses and those in the media who know but aren’t saying anything will take some strength and courage from his remarks. “Now’s the Time to come forward,” he said.

There are other MPs, from both sides of the House, who have the same concerns, said Mr. Bridgen, but they’re scared and afraid to speak out.

How should we, the people, respond to what is happening. We need to stand up and let our voices be heard. GB News’ Neil Oliver sums it up in one of his world-famous monologues: “If our MPs don’t care enough about harms to population, it’s time we reminded the whole damned lot of them we are still here.”


MP Says Covid-19 is a Manufactured Bioweapon and Security Services Knew About It in August 2019


European Reloaded Editor Note: We’ve published on UK MP Andrew Bridgen before. Having watched a couple of interviews already, we find him to be a careful, extremely well-informed person who first does his homework with experts such as Dr. Aseem Malhotra. He has a science background from his university days in biological sciences and biochemistry. Going beyond vaccine harms, he talks about Covid as a bioweapon and how it appeared unnoticed some time back in 2019. **Sources from the security services have confirmed this to Bridgen.

He says that he got his wife and child out of the country before he gave his famous 17-minute speech in Parliament on Covid vaccine harms.

Here’s the link to the group NHS100K.

Member of the UK Parliament Andrew Bridgen told NHS100K that global elites conspired to keep coronavirus secret for months, before exaggerating its severity to impose restrictions.

He said security services had known about the virus in the summer of 2019, months before its official identification, and were advised not to take any Covid “vaccines” or tests. He added that Covid was engineered to be a bioweapon and less harmful than the public was led to believe.

Mr. Bridgen also questioned whether influenza had been reclassified as Covid, said that treatments were suppressed so the “vaccine” could be authorised for use on the public and he believes he is suffering injuries as a result of having taken the AstraZeneca injection.

A week after his “vaccines harms speech” in Parliament, Mr. Bridgen spoke with Matt Taylor of NHS100K. Mr. Bridgen said he has never had the level of public interest and support as he has had over the issues he raised in Parliament. “There’s a huge public interest in all of this, which obviously the mainstream media are completely ignoring,” he said.

You can watch Mr. Bridgen’s interview with NHS100K below. NHS100K is a group of NHS care and social staff. It was set up in November 2021 by a group of ambulance workers, who support freedom of choice and reject vaccine mandates, to support both NHS and care staff.

NHS100K: MP Andrew Bridgen, 21 December 2022 (60 mins)

In the video above, Mr. Bridgen said re-analysis of samples pre-2020 show that the virus spread unnoticed by the public, without causing harm, before governments conspired to fabricate a crisis. Mr. Bridgen explained that the virus had been circulating for at least six months before the first lockdown in the UK.

His Parliament Speech-



1 Like

MP and American cardiologist call on the UK Parliament to hold the US government accountable for violation of the Biological Weapons Treaty


In a press release dated 13 March 2023, Mr. Bridgen and Dr. Fleming – a Physicist, Internist, Cardiologist and Nuclear Cardiologist – encouraged the US Congress to investigate the US funding of covid and highlighted that British citizens were paying the price for the US biological viral weapon and genetic vaccine programme funded by the US NIAID and Department of Defence. “Either the US will hold its criminals accountable or we should.”

“The world death count from the viral bioweapon is over 6.7 million, including more than 203,000 deaths in the UK. Based upon information as of 3 months ago (October 2022) there have been more than 2,400 deaths in the UK following the use of the genetic vaccine products, which are copies of the US biological viral bioweapon,” the statement said.

The statement also noted that there have been 1.6 million adverse effects reported to the Yellow Card system after being injected with the “genetic vaccines.”

Continued at link.


Let's also take into account who owns what

They cant run from the truth

Vaccination problems, UK Parliament - John Campbell

Andrew Bridgen MP writes to Attorney General alleging criminal conduct

by the MHRA

Prentis was appointed by Installed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as the Attorney General for England and Wales and Advocate General for Northern Ireland.

“Please find enclosed details of an allegation of criminal conduct, by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA),” he wrote. “It is clearly in the public interest – not only in the UK, but also across the world.”

“To Victoria Prentis awaiting a reply … Please read.”

24 July 2023

Dear Victoria,

Please find enclosed details of an allegation of criminal conduct, by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), with regard to the emergency use, authorisation and approval of the Pfizer BioNTech Covid-19 vaccines and boosters. Please note that the difference between appendix 4 and appendix 5, is that appendix 5 contains additional data regarding lymphadenopathy.

The MHRA is an Executive Agency of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and operates under the terms of a framework agreement with the Department. One of the Agency’s main statutory functions is to regulate medicines to ensure medicines for human use supplied in the UK are of an acceptable standard so that public health is thereby safeguarded, and that innovation in medicines is brought to patients safely.

The MHRA performs the functions of the Secretary of State under UK legislation relating to medicines, which includes ensuring consumer safety in relation to licensing of medicines for use in the UK. As such it is important for public confidence in medicines that the MHRA is seen as an effective safeguard of public safety. If public confidence in the safety and regulation of medicines in the UK is undermined the consequences would include serious adverse effects on patients generally and increased pressure on the NHS.

In performing its function, it is vital that the MHRA fully complies with all relevant legislation and regulations as well as the Civil Service Code in upholding core values of integrity honesty, objectivity, and impartiality. The Code requires the MHRA to set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully and to correct any errors as soon as possible. The MHRA should not deceive or knowingly mislead Ministers, Parliament or others, and legislation makes it an offence to mislead the Minister over pharmacovigilance responsibilities under Regulation 208 Human Medicines Regulation 2012 as amended.

I would be grateful for your advice as to how this matter can be progressed, as it is clearly in the public interest – not only in the UK, but also across the world. Could you please confirm safe receipt of all these documents.

Yours sincerely

[Signed] Andrew Bridgen MP

Bridgen to Sunak: Recall parliament immediately to halt the covid booster programme


Andrew Bridgen, MP for North West Leicestershire, wrote to Installed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak yesterday after receiving a poor response from Victoria Prentis...

Below is the text of Mr. Bridgen’s letter to Sunak, an image of which he tweeted earlier today with the comment: “Letter to Rishi Sunak with all the evidence sent yesterday. Awaiting a reply. @RishiSunak @Conservatives

“Given the gravity of the peer-reviewed revelation, it would appear that parliament should be recalled immediately to review the latest scientific material and call a halt to the roll-out of the booster programme.”

Continued at link.